Which do you prefer visible Enemies or Non-visible enemies?

[Berylstone]

I play games to relax, and when I'm low on HP, desparately trying to get to a town and keep running into enemies that might end my game - it is not relaxing.  That's why I prefer enemies I can see and avoid if need be or find to repeatedly battle if I need to up my experience.  Game playing experience has taught me to not be completely lazy and avoid all battles, otherwise I will pay for it by seemingly endless grinding later.  But it's nice to be able to avoid enemies if I need to.

I can understand this.

But there are many other ways you can enable players to avoid combat without having to create unique sprites and paths for all of your monsters.  That would be a significant increase in work load for a very simple purpose.

For example: you could give players an ability they can use - such as a stealth skill or something like that - which would prevent random encounters from happening.  That would be a far easier solution if all you want to do is give players the option to avoid combat when they wish.  You could also give them an item they can equip which prevents random encounters.  I believe some of the older Final Fantasy games did that.

 

[ChaoticLapras]

Personally, I feel that random encounters are good when used every thirty steps or so in a dungeon area. However, I prefer to have bosses and major monsters placed on the screen. However, games such as Ahriman's Prophecy which have a different battle system use placed encounters well, and I prefer this battle style overall, so I guess I prefer placed enemies. But, if you are using the default system, I echo what I said above...

 

[Chaos Avian]

One game that handles random encounters superbly is Bravely Default. It has several modes of random encounters that you can change from the menu. Really frequent (i.e. 5 steps) which is great for grinding, standard encounters and turning encounters off completely. It's great for going through a dungeon and you're too debilitated for the boss so you turn off encounters, exit the dungeon, heal up, go and face the boss at your leisure~ Heck it's also great for raiding treasure chests without being interrupted.

 

[amerk]

I thought about doing a sort of on/off feature myself for random encounters myself. But then you'd have people who turn them off at all times, and then gripe because they are under-leveled.

 

[Galenmereth]

One game that handles random encounters superbly is Bravely Default. It has several modes of random encounters that you can change from the menu.

I have to disagree; Bravely Default feels to me like the developers took a shortcut. Fiddling with a menu to decide if I want to encounter enemies, how many, and if at all? That takes me out of the whole experience. It's like it's no longer a game, but a task to be done. I have a feeling they were going to have enemies visible and avoidable, but decided to save on production values.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

yeah, that feature is more fitting in a sandbox game...

 

[amerk]

Quoting myself again:

But then you'd have people who turn them off at all times, and then gripe because they are under-leveled.

Which is the reason I decided against an on/off feature. The only reason I actually played with the idea was because of all the people who cry about battles and the need to level up. These same people will cry that they are then way under-leveled for turning encounters off, and blame the developer for not properly balancing their game.

The reality is, you're not going to please everybody, since everybody has different tastes. Either you cater to the retro crowd who enjoys the more old school route of random encounters and level grinds, or the touch based crowd who prefers no grind at all and wants to see each and every enemy. Both crowds have a heavy backing, and very seldom will they bend to the opposite side.

A few (such as myself) play them all interchangeably and don't have a specific preference, as long as they are balanced.

That doesn't mean you can't create tools to reduce the encounter rate, which can be especially useful for tougher terrain.

 

[100LittleDreams]

I don't mind either way altho if you were to have a enemy jump out at you i'd prefer it to be under a certain condition. For example if you have to solve a puzzle and get the answer wrong and a enemy jumps out at you or if you step on a glowing tile/event and trigger a fight then I can understand. However constant random battles under 30 steps or less tend to be annoying especially with strong enemies in long dgns and if you don't have a save game event (in case you like to disable save from menu in dgns) then yea that would be annoying as hell.

 

[Stridah]

100% visible enemies, nothing worse then wanting to rush to a location and every 5 steps you have an invisible encounter.

 

[Berylstone]

100% visible enemies, nothing worse then wanting to rush to a location and every 5 steps you have an invisible encounter.

But you see this isn't specifically an issue with rather or not they are invisible or visible encounters because overly-frequent battles could exists either way.  

For example: let's say you were wanting to rush to a location but visible enemies kept attacking you every 5 steps.  It would likely be just as annoying.

My point is that just because your monsters are invisible on the map doesn't automatically mean that battles are going to be so frequent it becomes a nuisance.

 

[MasterLagger]

But you see this isn't specifically an issue with rather or not they are invisible or visible encounters because overly-frequent battles could exists either way.  

For example: let's say you were wanting to rush to a location but visible enemies kept attacking you every 5 steps.  It would likely be just as annoying.

My point is that just because your monsters are invisible on the map doesn't automatically mean that battles are going to be so frequent it becomes a nuisance.

Wait, if the enemies are visible on the map and the battles and are triggered on touch instead of automatic encounters, the player has a better chance at avoiding them to begin with. That is, unless there are hordes of enemies on the map. I could easily avoid enemies in Earthbound, compared to forced random encounters in Final Fantasy. But I don't see people putting hordes of visible enemies on a map to begin with, at least none of the games I've seen anyway.

 

[AcosmicDevi]

I prefer visible enemies, mostly because I've played too many games when the encounter rate was set too high (10-20 steps). However, I agree that you can do a combination of both. You can have visible enemies and then set surprise encounters (ambushes) at a low encounter rate (80 to 90 steps) to make it more realistic.

 

[Berylstone]

Wait, if the enemies are visible on the map and the battles and are triggered on touch instead of automatic encounters, the player has a better chance at avoiding them to begin with. That is, unless there are hordes of enemies on the map. I could easily avoid enemies in Earthbound, compared to forced random encounters in Final Fantasy. But I don't see people putting hordes of visible enemies on a map to begin with, at least none of the games I've seen anyway.

That was what I was saying.  It just depends how the designer makes the game.

They could choose to place hordes of visible enemies on a map that are difficult or impossible to avoid, just as they could place overly-frequent invisible encounters.  The same problem could exists in either system.  

And there are lots of ways to make encounters rare or avoidable rather they are invisible or visible (I mentioned a few in my previous post).  Just as there are lots of ways to make them too frequent and unavoidable regardless.

That's why I am trying to point out that a debate about visible vs invisible encounters doesn't necessarily equal a debate about too frequent vs avoidable.  

 

[LanceGardner]

My game uses visible enemies, randomly spawned. That's to say, most of my small maps have perhaps 6 enemies on them, but each only has a 30% chance of spawning (more or less). Sometimes I include rare enemies that have a very small % chance of spawning, too. So on any individual runthrough only 2 or 3 enemies appear per map, and each time it's different. I find this a nice compromise between randomness and player control.

 

[Zoltor]

Omg don't have enemies on your map, it limits map, and game design almost as bad as making the map 3D, just don't do it(unless you are ok with POS mapping, little to no exploration, wasting space, ect).

Random encounters is the best way to go, as it doesn't interfere with anything. However if you don't like random encounters, there are ways to go about it, without ruining the game. You can have a radar system(aka like 7th Saga) or a tranparant, substanceless moving object(aka like Dragonview)that will initiate a battle if it runs into you/you run into it.

 

[LanceGardner]

"Omg don't have enemies on your map, it limits map, and game design almost as bad as making the map 3D"

Really? So Chrono Trigger must be a pretty poorly designed rpg, then.

 

[Zoltor]

lmfao Chrono Trigger is the be all, end all prime examples of how it ruins game design.  Linear as all hell maps, no real overworld map(the whole visible enemies thing, is completely uncompatible with a world map).

The only exception to the rule of having enemies on a map, is in the Lufia games. Random encounters for the world map, and randomly generated maps, using room type modules to piece together a map for dungeons(not the best map design ever granted, but It's pretty good, and as good as you can have with such a mechanic limiting map design). Furthermore, Lufia 2 actually has a reason to have enemies on a map(aka the puzzles), which is why It's such a great game(if you don't have a added reason to have enemies on a map, rather it be puzzles, tactics, ect, you're better off not having enemies on the map), despite the dungeon design being restricted)

 

[TheRiotInside]

lmfao Chrono Trigger is the be all, end all prime examples of how it ruins game design.  Linear as all hell maps, no real overworld map(the whole visible enemies thing, is completely uncompatible with a world map).

I can't tell if you're being serious, or just want to be the cool guy who bags on Chrono Trigger. Either way I respectfully disagree with you.

Anyway, I prefer enemies to be on-screen. If you do it right, it doesn't have to affect your maps at all really, or sacrifice any kind of game design. I don't throw them onto every map. After I finish a map to my liking, I see if there are any appropriate spaces to have a monster romping about. If it fits, I'll throw something in there, if it doesn't, I won't. I don't really understand how you can't have non-linear maps without enemies on screen. Again, maybe it's the cool-to-bash-top-rated-games thing.

I've come to my own conclusion on the matter because I really enjoy exploring. I like expansive areas with lots to find if you take the time, and having random encounters everywhere really breaks up the flow for me. Especially frustrating when you're in the middle of a puzzle and random encounters keep making you lose your train of thought.

I would argue that on-screen enemies are fantastic when integrated properly, but I don't think I'll get very far with someone who thinks Chrono Trigger has terrible game design...

 

[Zoltor]

Don't kid yourself, CT is riddled with so many design flaws, It's not funny, I was being kind to only list ones caused by enemy sprites being on the map, the issues with it I didn't list, is just Square's fault.

 Speaking of flaws that exist because Square got lazy(since this one flaw out of the many flaws in that game, has something to do with the discussion/topic), if you're gonna have enemies on the map, omg make sure you have a respawning system(unless there's a very specific reason why the enemies shouldn't respawn, like in Lufia 2).

CT is poorly designed in just about every aspect but the skill system, and Story(side quests, mapping, even how the monsters on screen are handled, you're forced into 95% of all the battles, why would anyone like this over random encounters. Even people who support the sprite on map format, support it because they don't like having to get into a encounter, in order to run from them), the joke that game calls a stealing feature lol(there's only a few enemies in the entire game worth stealing from), lack of places on the world map(you would think since It's not a real world map, they could have even more places, and more game in general), ect.

I didn't want to address all that, because this topic Isn't about CT, but it sickens how overrated CT is.

PS. Why Isn't the quoting butting working sigh, bah whatever.

 

[MasterLagger]

It's been forever since I played Chrono Trigger. I do think it's slightly over praised, but it is a great game overall, despite a few minor inconsistencies (at least, minor in my opinion).

Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars is another good example (and a personal favorite of mine) of an RPG game that has tons of visible overworld enemies (some of which occasionally do interesting things).